Bombay High Court to shortly start hearing arguments by Kangana Ranaut against the BMC’s move to demolish portions of her property on allegations of illegal alterations.
Time had been given yesterday to recently impleaded respondents, Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut @rautsanjay61 and the @mybmc officer who ordered the demolition, to file their responses by the time their turn to address the Court reaches.
However, the hearing was fixed for today.
The Court yesterday remarked that it cannot leave the property in a half-demolished state while refusing to adjourn the matter further.
Birendra Saraf (for @KanganaTeam): The @mybmc said they would file their affidavit on Thursday. The affidavit was filed this morning. I will respond to the affidavit by Monday.
Aspi Chinoy (BMC): We have served it on Thursday night, when my friend got it I do not know.
Chinoy, referring to Kangana Ranaut's rejoinder: This should not be taken up as writ petition.
Saraf: It has been established that I had a difference in opinion from the people in power. I had a difference in ideologies, which I will continue to express.
Saraf adds that the timing of the case would also show that the case is one in malice
Saraf recounts details regarding when the property was purchased (2017), when permission was sought to carry out repairs to the 42-year old property in line with recommendation after a structural audit, how the MCGM noted that the repairs required were major etc.
Saraf: At every stage, we have engaged proper advisers and consultants and also informed the MCGM.
Corporation has been informed, Society was informed. It is not that something was surreptitiously done, Saraf adds
Saraf: On Sept 7, the officials of MCGM visited the bungalow and were there till .... They noticed that a worker was doing waterproofing work. The WhatsApp screenshots between @KanganaTeam and her sister show the time when the officials visited
Saraf: The timing is shown much later (by the BMC) in the inspection report. I will show these contradictions.
On Sept 8 I make a response, I write a letter that no work is being carried out as alleged. At the first opportunity, I told them no work is going on as alleged.
Saraf: On Sept 9 an order is passed... This given on Sept 9 morning, at 10.30 am.
However, on Sept 9, the entire machinery has gathered, even before the notice has been given.
How was the ground floor demolished? Bombay HC asks when it is told that the work on the ground floor had already been done (and that there were no violations from pending work).
Saraf: That is exactly the point, I bow down to your Lordships
Aspi Chinoy refers to a 3 foot ledge that was unauthorised and has been demolished. The jutting out part is seen, just near the ground floor and the first floor, he adds.
Court: Is this jutting out portion shown in the magazine?
HC asks Chinoy to get information on some aspects, including details of workers stated to have been found on the property of @KanganaTeam
Court: You can ask your designated officer, instead of us asking him and him getting nervous...
Saraf: The only statement made in the affidavit that workmen, material and tools were found at the time of inspection. No details, how many workmen, nothing at all
After I file my affidavit, please have a look at their (BMC's) additional affidavit. Please have a look at para 81.
Saraf: I don't see any affidavits saying that on Sept 5 any photographs were taken.
In the new affidavit, they say the mukadam took photographs also.
Now they say "six workmen" and that "materials and tools" were found ...
Saraf keeps reading the later affidavit of the BMC, refers to the submission that photographs were taken: They don't annexe these photographs...
Saraf: In their first affidavit they mention no material. In their second affidavit, they say material "like plywood". They are just trying to improve their case at every stage.
Saraf refers to BMC's submissions that there were "extensive renovation work" being carried out and that six workmen and material was found on Ranaut's property.
He goes on to says that there was no sketch that was up to scale, although circulars require such sketches
Saraf: The only thing produced is a photograph of 1 person standing on a stool or a ladder.
Refers to circulars issued by the MCGM, Saraf asserts that they have also admitted that sketches up to scale should be there.
Saraf also objects to BMC's submission that @KanganaTeam has not denied that there are unauthorised constructions, referring to page 30 of the petition.
In Ground L, it says that Kangana Ranaut has termed the BMC's allegations of unauthorised work were "perverse", he recites
Saraf: It (BMC's allegations) is never accepted anywhere
Referring to the conversion of some office space for toilet use, Saraf adds: I have said that some of the areas mentioned are in operational use, how can you say that it is unauthorised use?
Saraf: I have also said if you had given me a fair opportunity, I would have consulted an expert. And I might have possibly removed it myself if they recommended it.
Saraf adds that in new apartments: We always see teething issues. Jan, the bungalow was ready and occupied. Then there was COVID... Maybe there is touch work going on because of water leakage... bungalow was exposed to monsoons. Some touch up here or there obviously gets done
Saraf: The fact that somebody visited on Sept 5, that I have also said.
The point is when I put twice in issue that there is no "detection report"....
Saraf takes the Court through various photographs to state that the areas demolished in the bungalow were portions where construction was already over.
In page 159, look at the toilet. This is one of the things they say was unauthorised.
Court: It is demolished?
Saraf: Yes
Court: Something is cut, what is this?
Saraf: Must be a vent, I will find out.
Saraf: Sofas are there... 163, light fittings are there.... everything is completed, Milord.
Court asks that details be submitted on which floor these photographs are from.
Saraf: Page 166 - this was where the coffee machine (featured in the magazine) was kept. Pages 167, 168, 169 - none of these show work was being carried out. 170, there was a toilet with everything fitted in.
Court: When this Orange chap (architect) carried out the work, he must have taken photographs
Saraf says that he has been asking for photographs from others and that he will get more by Monday.
Saraf refers to comparative photos he has shown in the submissions.
Saraf: This shows the extensive damage done to my property, without any regard to what is lying where.
Saraf: At page 195, there is a person cleaning something on the ground. He is shown as a worker when he is looking at his mobile. This is the kind of extent they go to justify... the more and more you get entangled in it.
If detection was made on the 5th of September, Saraf says that there are circulars stating that the detection should have been added to the detection register on the same day.
Saraf adds that a rough sketch of unauthorised construction should also be prepared
Court refers to "detection register report" of BMC, referring to certain entries, it asks BMC: When was the notice given in these cases and when were the demolition?
Chinoy: Does your Lordships wanted it in term of a note or ...?
Court: We want it right now.
Chinoy: I don't have the details now....
He adds that he can obtain the details and submit it orally or by a written note.
Court says it can be submitted in whichever mode convenient
Chinoy: I can provide a short note on all of these...
Court: Very well.
Court says it will continue hearing the matter on Monday at 11 am. Court has asked parties to make their written submissions
Saraf says he will file an affidavit by Monday
Court: Give it Mr Chinoy by Sunday evening, please
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.